Hamlet kills the eavesdropper behind the arras

Hamlet kills the eavesdropper behind the arras in a sudden burst of passion, demonstrating that he is not wholly incapable of decisive action. In Sigmund Freud’s reading, the act sharpens the central puzzle of the tragedy: Hamlet can act, yet remains unable to carry out his father’s command to avenge him.

The Action and Its Contrast

Freud identifies two occasions on which Hamlet acts. The first is this sudden, passionate stabbing of the person concealed behind the arras. The second is more calculated: Hamlet cunningly sends two courtiers to the death intended for himself. Together, the episodes distinguish impulsive action from purposeful strategy and make it difficult to explain Hamlet’s delay simply as an inability to act.

The killing therefore functions less as the completion of Hamlet’s revenge than as evidence against a broad account of his hesitation. He can respond forcefully when the circumstances provoke him, and he can act with deliberation when his own survival is at stake. The task he cannot perform is specifically the one laid upon him by his father’s ghost.

Freud’s Interpretation of Hamlet’s Hesitation

Freud connects the distinction between Hamlet’s actions and his delayed revenge to the identity of the intended victim: the man who removed Hamlet’s father and took his place beside Hamlet’s mother. In Freud’s interpretation, this usurper has realized Hamlet’s own repressed infantile wishes. The impulse that might be expected to drive Hamlet toward revenge is consequently turned inward, becoming self-reproach and scruples of conscience.

The killing behind the arras helps make this argument legible by establishing that Hamlet’s hesitation is selective. Freud presents the action as part of the drama’s evidence about a conflict whose decisive motives are not stated directly: Hamlet’s capacity for sudden violence stands beside his inhibition over the revenge that would confront him with the wishes he represses.